12 Angry Men [The Criterion Collection]

In 2008, the American Film Institute (AFI) unveiled its list of Top 10 'Courtroom Dramas'. First on the list was 'To Kill a Mockingbird' (1962) and in second place was '12 Angry Men' (1957). In my humble opinion, I think that '12 Angry Men' should have topped the chart because it is not only profound but entertaining too. The film was praised by critics but was only a lukewarm success at the box office. At the 30th Academy Awards, it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay (Reginald Rose). Amazingly, this was Sidney Lumet's directorial debut and it announced the arrival of a major talent. Lumet would later go on to direct such classics as ''The Pawnbroker' (1964), 'The Hill' (1965), 'Serpico' (1973), 'Dog Day Afternoon' (1975), and 'Network' (1976). '12 Angry Men' features an ensemble cast of great actors, including Henry Fonda (Juror No 8), Martin Balsam (Juror No 1), and Lee J. Cobb (Juror No 3) to name just three of the amazing twelve. I consider the film an epic, even though its 96 mins runtime takes place in a hot and sticky jury room, where the 12 jurors must decide on the evidence they have whether an 18-year-old "slum kid" is guilty of stabbing his father to death or not. A guilty verdict would yield a mandatory death sentence. Yes, the stakes are high. 11 of the jurors believe that the boy is guilty but Juror No 8 (Henry Fonda) believes that there is room for reasonable doubt and they all need to talk and discuss the case from a number of angles before deciding the kid is guilty. Of course, the other 11 don't take too kindly to this as they don't want to hang around, with one juror expressing anxiety that he might miss the Yankees game later that evening. Juror No 8 is left with the almost impossible task of trying to bring the other 11 around to making a reasonable and informed decision. No easy task as the 11 are certain that the boy is guilty and needs to be executed for murdering his father in cold blood. Things get quite personal at times, with jurors throwing insults at each other and there are occasions when it looks like some of them will come to blows. Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA School of Law Michael Asimow referred to the film as a "tribute to a common man holding out against lynch mob mentality", while Gavin Smith of Film Comment called the film "a definitive rebuttal to the lynch mob hysteria of the McCarthy era". '12 Angry Men' is a comment on American democracy that was under threat at the time by the McCarthy crackdown. What the film is attempting to highlight is how, in a perfect world, a world without political repression, democracy should really work. The film postulates a simple premise, one that suggests that a true democracy values different opinions and these opinions should all be considered when trying to hammer out a reasonable compromise. After watching this film, you will be inspired and satisfied that the jurors in this particular case have done their job well, but you may also worry that sometimes jurors don't take their responsibilities this seriously and as a consequence the innocent end up going to jail or worse still facing the death penalty. Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010 Fordham University School of Law Film Festival, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that seeing '12 Angry Men' while she was in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law. After watching this brilliant legal drama you, too, may want to do the same thing.

this is superb - the whole cast is magnificent

A great film. A classic.

This is a fabulous film. I’ve seen this one (the original version) a newer version and on stage as a theatre production. Highly recommend

I have known of this film for years and from the off I have thought it was special. I had not seen it for some years so I bought it on Amazon. Well, having just seen it again, I have to say that it gets better with every viewing and I consider it one of the best films ever made. I'm no film critic but for sheer suspense and atmosphere no film has ever bettered '12 Angry Men'. The performances of those playing the jurors in this film are stupendous, from Henry Fonda and Ed Begley to John Fiedler each make a valued contribution. For me however, the star of the film is Lee J Cobb. We perceive him as a once loving father who has become very embittered because he feels deserted by his son who ran away from home. He is bent on inflicting on the accused the punishment he feels his own son deserves. This is a thread that is picked up early in the precedings and is bubbling under the surface for the whole film. The erosion of the prejudice and blinkered thinking so evident in many of the jurors is gradually exposed by a juror who is hesitant to so readily condemn a man to death, Henry Fonda. His stand eventually gains the support from one other jury member and from then on it is a war of attrition with the rest of the jury. It is fascinating, illuminating and emotive watching the other jurors as their pre-conceived idea's are broken down. We witness the gradual isolation of the bigoted Ed Begley, the exposure of Jack Warden's insensitivity, the icy detachment of E.G.Marshall is thawed and the inner tensions of Lee J Cobb are broken in a memorable climax. There is no need for any extra's on this DVD (although there is an original trailer included) the film stands on its own merits, a real cinematic experience. If you are even half contemplating buying it do not hesitate further , you will not be disappointed.

If you find yourself staring at the tellybox in slack-jawed amazement because there are twelve complete strangers on there stuck in a room arguing for 90 minutes, one of two things has probably happened. Either a) you're watching an extended episode of Big Brother, in which case you should turn off the TV set and go out and do something less boring instead (I suggest thrusting your head into a bucket of hot toe-jam), or b) you're watching 12 Angry Men, in which case you should pat yourself on the back and treat yourself to a nice cup of tea or something, because it really is a quite brilliant film. I vaguely remember watching Sidney Lumet's courtroom drama about 15 years ago and thinking it was quite good, but after a recent period of upholding justice by serving on a jury at the Old Bailey, I thought I'd give it another go. For those living in shameful ignorance (a small village near Swindon), a brief synopsis: twelve jurors retire to consider their verdict in a murder trial. Eleven of them think the accused is guilty, but the other (Henry Fonda) has convincing arguments otherwise, and tries to talk the majority round. 12 Angry Men is an absolute masterclass in genius writing by Reginald Rose, and a veritable gallery of acting spiffiness by the likes of Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Quincy MD and Detective Arbogast from Psycho. What is essentially a group of cranky old geezers talking for an hour and a half is a genuinely gripping story in which the only action sequences are when someone gets up to go for a wee. Michael Bay has much to learn from it. I can't even put my finger on any central message the film has, because on one hand it's about standing by your beliefs despite being in the minority, but on the other hand it's about not being a stubborn twit and allowing people to change your mind if they've got a good argument. On another hand it's about respect for other people, on yet another hand it's about not allowing prejudice to get in the way of common sense, and on another hand still it's about remaining calm in the face of a blustering idiot hole. So essentially 12 Angry Men is a film with many hands, which makes sense having read this review but would be an incongruous poster quote. Perhaps this is why I haven't yet been contacted by the Hollywood Marketing Board. Anyway, go away and watch it now and you'll come away a better person. The Incredible Suit guarantees it.* *The Incredible Suit does not guarantee it

There is little I can add to the many review comments already made but would add three observations as to why on seeing this 1957 film for the first time in 2012, I feel it is remains so powerful: 1. The film works so perfectly because it breaks all the rules of such courtroom dramas. In 1957 it must have been truly revolutionary viewing, explaining why four Oscar nominations including Best Picture followed. The claustrophobia of the jury room including its washroom under NY summer heat as the only set locations over 97% of the film are used to great effect. 2. The piece succeeds dramatically not just because it is well scripted (from a predecessor teleplay) but as the title "Twelve Angry Men" infers, from its power of great ensemble and emotional range playing by all the cast and not just a few leads. I would single out Joseph Sweeney as the retired but knowledgable observer and E. G. Marshall as the cool headed logical analyst alongside the already famous or soon to be famous cast in proving that the film works so well because it does not let Henry Fonda or Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley have all the running time and lines. 3. Finally, given limited sets the creative use of camera positions especially the closing in on faces with different lens at key points shows how keeping it simple can also be very effective. In answer to why this film does not make more top film lists, I suspect its too theatric style staging leaves many feeling it is not their view of what great cinema is about. It is also interesting that when director Sidney Lumet returned to shoot another courtroom drama later in life ("The Verdict" from 1982 which included Jack Warden again in the cast), he adopted the completely opposite approach to lesser effect as per my Amazon review (http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R4ZZN5KBIMHOW/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0090NAFOO&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283926&store=dvd)

I first saw this film as young lad in the late sixty's, and couple of time since. Then I saw the play at the Garrick theatre with Martin Shaw. That's why I bought this DVD to compare it with the play. The film is just as gripping as when I first saw it. It's about 12 Jurors in a New York court house room deliberating if the young lad who is accused of murdering his father Is guilty or not. The first vote that is taken, one man, ( Henry Fonda,) votes not guilty. Slowly but surely after more deliberating and voting, more jurors find him not guilty. It's surprising how the jurors work out the clues to the case from what was said and seen in the court room something that the young mans lawyer should have picked up on but didn't because of his, well, inexperience or uselessness as a defending lawyer, he was the only one the lad could afford. Of course there is a lot more to the film that I have explained here, but I don't want to give too much away and spoil it for anyone who want's to watch it. If you like old black and white films and a bit of suspense with a great cast get this DVD, I'm sure you will enjoy it.